Ayaz Amir Nomination Rejected on basis of "NAZRIA PAKISTAN"

It would be stupid to think that iam a modoodi follower...2nd, modoodi can declare anyone kafir he wants... Just like you... 3rd you seem to be fond of modoodi and seems like you are his follower and consider Quaid e Azam kafir and traitor who divided your bharat mata....

Broke the trust of the foundation and
Possibly used it to buy and use a haraam commodity.

"In the summer of 1995 I was to take up a Reuters fellowship at Green College, Oxford, thanks to my friend Dr Humayun Khan who was then head of the Commonwealth Institute in London. From the Cowasjee Foundation I got a cheque for 500 pounds “with which to buy books...”, as I was sternly told. Some of that money, I regret to say, found its way into the pubs of Oxford. But with the remainder I bought some handsome old editions, which I open now and then and think of those bygone times."

I like the strong stance/stand of ECP when it comes to examining eligibility of candidates. It is good time to clean up the filth of old professional politicians who have been under-performing in both (Federal and Provincial) Parliaments for long time.

It is high time to give opportunity to young, energetic and honest candidates to win Parliament seats.

"Ayaz Amir Nomination Rejected on basis of "NAZRIA PAKISTAN""
I think title is based on what Ayaz said, ECP will not disqualify based on just his views, which have not been put in action.

I think, he will be disqualified because he accepted that he broke trust. Trustworthyness is an important accept of 62/63 and parliamentarians all across world. By his action, which he himself accepts, is just like "hurting your own foot with an axe".

He might have been "Sadiq" but not "Ameen".
I think he is a "goner".
-------------
It is so easy to judge others. Isn't it?
I can't think of anybody in politics who can make such a claim.
"Sadiq&Ameen" is an ambiguous term, put in by Ghazi Zia but even he didn't try to apply it.
I'm sure it will be amended during the next parliamentary term.

I think you have not read my analysis. No one but Ayaz himself is to be blamed to write about an instance where he broke a trust. Ayaz himself is judge & jury on his own actions and gave a verdict on himself.

Ayaz himself wrote in his article that he broke "trust" of the foundation, which gave money to buy books as he used it in pub.

Lesson is do not write about wrong things you might have done in your life.

Biggest evidence always is what you write about yourself.

I think GM and IK might regret what they have written about themselves in their books.

Sipahi
So, What?
He admitted his fault and showed remorse over it.
It is much better than to lie and try to conceal your shortcomings.
The returning officer should only be concerned about tax evaders, defaulters and other cases of fraud where ones crime has been established by a court of law.

As far as remorse, I don't see any
---------
You sound like God now!
One is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
All these judges most of whom may haven taken bribes themselves are going to judge others based on perceptions.

As far as your personal comment, I forgive you.
---------
That is very nice of you!
Instead of being a selfrighteous, sagacious, sadiq and ameen,
can you please forgive Ayaz Amir too and mind your own business.

Disqualification of Ayaz Amir based on his opinion is joke, origional article was in english and urdu translation may have changed the angle. He will defend his case in the court.

In general I am happy that EC is tight on all candidate otherwise in past every bank defaulter, drug smuggler, robber etc. were cleared easily by EC. Next time people will think before applying as some applications has resulted candidates ending up in jails. Some of the fake degree holders if they have not applied may get escape but investigations proved them guilty and they were put in jail.

In my opinion, Ayaz has disqualified himself because he accepted that he broke trust by using money for books to buy somethings in a pub, possibly to take care of a bad habit. This is a case of self-incrimination.

For details, please read my following post and subsequent posts. This is my analysis based on data available and not targetted towards anyone or any party.

Burden of proof for criminal conviction is different from the burden of proof needed for disqualification as a member of parliament.

For members of parliament, as per the constitution, someone who is commonly known as violator of Islamic injunctions stands disqualified. But this 'common knowledge' can not convict him as a criminal.

This is a significant difference. The constitutional clause is intended to stop people of dubious reputation from entering the parliament because as a member of parliament one is judged at a higher standard than common man.

If one tries to convict somebody, then the requirement for evidence is substantially more. In any case, one's own admission of guilt goes a long way towards fulfilling that requirement.

In my opinion, Ayaz got in trouble with RO based on the following paragraph. Note, English is his original writing, Urdu is translation.

Broke the trust of the foundation and
Possibly used it to buy and use a haraam commodity.

"In the summer of 1995 I was to take up a Reuters fellowship at Green College, Oxford, thanks to my friend Dr Humayun Khan who was then head of the Commonwealth Institute in London. From the Cowasjee Foundation I got a cheque for 500 pounds “with which to buy books...”, as I was sternly told. Some of that money, I regret to say, found its way into the pubs of Oxford. But with the remainder I bought some handsome old editions, which I open now and then and think of those bygone times."

I don't know what is the big deal that you want Ayaz to be crucified.
Suppose you are a very rich person and have a foundation that gives out money for various causes.I happen to be a friend of yours and you give me $500 for me to buy some books for my personal library and I go out buy books worth $400 and spend 100 on food or cigarettes.I did break a promise or didn't listen to your advise but I don't think I will be committing any crime.
Would you prosecute me if you found out?

"I will not trust you with anything anymore."
Well Well Well
Mr perfect!
I hope i never have a friend who behaves like that especially after i tell him that i regretted that.
It is not the public money we are dealing with here.

But in front of Returning Officer, Ayaz said that he did not know about translation as he only wrote the English article in which this sentence was edited out.

But unfortunately for him, his English article included the following passage, " ..From the Cowasjee Foundation I got a cheque for 500 pounds “with which to buy books...”, as I was sternly told. Some of that money, I regret to say, found its way into the pubs of Oxford. "

The RO contended that obviously rooh afza was not served in pubs.

By the way, Ayaz's wining dining is pretty common knowledge and there are quite a few witnesses who have been present in such gatherings but who would rather not give a testimony for obvious reasons.

But the need for witnesses is only in criminal case, which this is not. For rejection of nomination papers, "a common knowledge of candidates actions against Islamic injunctions" is enough. The RO decided that this requirement had been fulfilled so Ayaz was not eligible to contest elections.

Interestingly, Ayaz did not say in front of RO that he does not drink.

If the question of getting him convicted and sentenced to jail for drinking arises, then obviously a higher level of evidence will be needed.

I think its very subjective; The RO deduced Wine as "zauq lateef kay mashrabi zaiqay ......";

If we agree to your analysis then IK (the great khan) should be the first to be disqualified; You know that he will not be disqualified since the establishment (who is doing all this ridiculous thing) is behind him.

Imran Khan definitely gets disqualified under 62 & 63. However, his saving grace may be that although he has done that in the past but has repented and he is not currently involved in activities in contravention of these articles. But that may be tricky to prove.

This seems to be a ridiculous argument that I have done something wrong (playboy) in the past but after that I have not and will not do this; Why not the same argument applies to Ayaz Amir?; After all he is quoting 1995 I think.

First you need to charge him by asking him whether you drink or not? Why not RO asks Ayaz Amir "From you column I deduced that you have been a drinker; whats your take on this?" The RO just rejected his papers.

While Quaid-e-Azam would be turning violently in his grave, General Zia ul Haq must be having a ball inside there. Never before, Zia’s amendments have been implemented so vigorously and intensely as they are being now, and the watchdog is Supreme Court too.

The Islamyat books have become rare in the bookshops, as thousands of candidates are in a mad rush to buy them. All of a sudden having masters in Islamyat is gold, as these candidates want a crash course in Islamyat. Earlier the only job which could possibly land in the lap of Islamyat graduates was the teaching in public schools, but now they have another vista of elections. They cannot thank Zia ul Haq enough.

The district returning officers (DRO) across the country are enjoying themselves limitlessness while they tease, slice and dice the worthless politicians. From religious knowledge to the familial intricacies, everything is being asked in full court room. Perhaps DROs know that these corrupt politicians will loot and plunder the nation after elections, so they are humiliating them in advance.

Anyway, I have culled ten most weird, funny, and strange questions which are asked by the DROs from the candidates during the nomination and acceptance of the papers and to see whether candidates fulfill the 62/63 or not. Here you go:

1. In which situations, bath becomes mandatory for the married Muslims?
2. How many wives you have, and how many nights you spend with each of them?
3. Do you believe in honeymoon?
4. Have you been circumcised properly?
5. Have you stood in front of girls college ever in your life?
6. Have you ever seen any censored movie?
7. Have you ever eaten pork?
8. If you are dying with thirst in a desert, and get a bottle of alcohol, would you drink it?
9. If in a river, a great religious scholar, your wife and son are drowning, and you can save only one, to whom would you save?
10. If you win the elections, won’t it disturb the lives of your husband, kids and the in-laws?

The list is long, and its keep expanding as the DROs are not stopping to cease this funny streak. Politicians are too vulnerable to protest.